April 28, 2005

Science Misinformation

If you listen to UK's current Science Minister, plus two others vying for his position, evidently that's what you'll hear.

The Guardian asked Minister David Sainsbury (Labour), and rival candidates Robert Key (Conservative) and Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat), a series of questions about scientific issues and science policy, including one about nanotech. You can read the whole article here, but for our purposes, we'll just report how each of them responded to this query:

How will you stop Nanotechnology becoming another farce like GM food?

Sainsbury: Early on in the development of technology, you need a dialogue between scientists and the public, which really looks at whether there are any ethical, safety, health or environmental problems which might arise, so you can look at the regulatory environment and see whether it's capable of dealing with the new technology or whether changes need to be made. With nanotechnology, we asked the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering to produce a report on whether there were any implications and we've now responded to that. We're drawing up a programme of research to check out whether there are any problems in one or two of the areas where we just don't know enough.

Sounds like a politician, doesn't he? Given what we've heard from him before, though, we shouldn't be too surprised by this non-answer.

Oh, well, let's see how the others did.

How will you stop Nanotechnology becoming another farce like GM food?

Key: You can't prevent it, and when we get people talking about grey goo it makes it more difficult, but it is articulating a very genuine fear and misunderstanding of what it is all about. It goes back to science education in schools and to the media having a responsibility to expose these arguments and explore them so the public can understand them. Nanotechnology has the most wonderful potential for not only human economic gain, but for human health as well, for the delivery of designer drugs which would benefit an enormous number of people, yet people are frightened of it. It's an everyday thing, nanotechnology. It has been going on for decades. It's not something to be frightened of, it's something to understand and be positive about.

Um, you can't prevent what -- grey goo? nanotechnology? a farce? It's not at all clear what he's talking about.

Also, while we agree that nanotech has wonderful potential for human gain, should be better understood, and need not be unreasonably feared, it's not enough to simply tell people they should stop fretting and be positive.

"Don't worry, be happy" may be typical political palaver, but the serious implications of molecular manufacturing deserve -- no, demand -- a more considered response than that.

Next?

How will you stop Nanotechnology becoming another farce like GM food?

Harris: There's a role for government and opinion leaders to take issue with people, even if they are the heir to the throne. The idea of grey goo has been comprehensively dismissed, which is why it is probably only found in the upper echelons of the royal family. We have to be more proactive in dealing with the scare stories. We need to make sure we educate people as to the potential benefits and indeed the downsides, though it's difficult to see what the danger of nanotechnology per se is.

This is even worse. To suggest that nanotech poses no risk at all is just plain irresponsible.

Mr. Harris -- in fact, all three gentlemen -- could use some education of their own about the real dangers of advanced nanotechnology.

Yes, there are wonderful potential benefits, and we concur that scare stories about grey goo aren't necessary. But any person who holds or seeks a position of responsibility for science policy needs a deeper understanding than that. Misinforming the public about such grave issues, whether through ignorance or by equivocation, is intolerable.